Tuesday, December 20, 2016

All the ballyhoo has been shown as just that. The recounts changed nothing and today, those effete liberals who sought to subvert the Electoral College by hounding electors (including making death threats) to change their minds, were handed their marching orders in spades. The electors, with a few notable exceptions, did their duty.

On the Republican side two electors refused to vote for Trump. One, a Chris Suprun, has been outed as a bankrupt who claimed he was a first responder at 9/11 ... since shown to have been a lie.

The Democrats were more fractured. An elector in Maine tried to vote for Bernie Sanders but was ruled improper; a Minnesota elector who tried to do the same was replaced as was a Colorado elector who tried to vote for Republican Governor Kasich. But the big upset was in Washington State where three pledged Clinton electors ended up voting for Colin Powell, one time Republican Secretary of State, and the another for 'Faith Spotted Eagle'. In accordance with Washington State law they all face fines up to $1,000. It will be interesting to see whether the other Michael Moore, doyen of effete liberals, makes good on his promise to pay the fines of any elector who switched (but perhaps the offer only extended to Republicans).

Interesting to see a spark of reason from Democrat John Kerry, outgoing Secretary of State, in describing Trump's nominees of Rex Tillerson and General Mattis as Secretary of State and Secretary of Defence respectively as "thoughtful" appointments.

So what if Tillerson knows Putin and has a track record of doing deals. One might be forgiven for thinking these as useful attributes for an incoming SoS. At the very least he should be given the chance to prove himself. Put it this way ... he would have to be pretty bad in order to replicate the series of disasters that have characterised US foreign policy over the past eight years.

The science of criminal profiling has been with us for many years now and has launched innumerable TV shows. The probability of a correct diagnosis is about 90% now. These people are saying that the orange one is one step away from being a fruit loop and will not be able to make decisions under pressure.

DSM-5 criteria for narcissistic personality disorder include these features:

· Having an exaggerated sense of self-importance · Expecting to be recognized as superior even withoutachievements that warrant it· Exaggerating your achievements and talents· Being preoccupied with fantasies about success, power,brilliance, beauty or the perfect mate· Believing that you are superior and can only be understood by or associate with equally special people

· Requiring constant admiration· Having a sense of entitlement· Expecting special favours and unquestioning compliance with your expectations· Taking advantage of others to get what you want· Having an inability or unwillingness to recognise the needs and feelings of others· Being envious of others and believing others envy you· Behaving in an arrogant or haughty manner

Egbut ... you know my position. I held the view that America deserved better than a choice between Trump and Clinton. Both are flawed characters. Nevertheless I acknowledge the truism uttered by the other Michael (Mike) Moore when he said 'the people are right even when they're wrong'. America has spoken ... Trump won the Electoral College vote despite the desperate attempt of the effete liberal left to subvert the process and, in doing so, actually increased his winning margin over Shillary by two votes.

I think your first sentence is unfortunate linking Trump to criminal profiling. He deserves the chance to make good the promises he was elected on. That's democracy ... he won, they lost, to the victor the spoils.

America is at the crossroads. Certainly Trump will be an 'interesting' President like no other ... the Trump Presidency will not be business as usual, of that you can be sure. Only time tell how history judges his time in office ... one thing for sure, he won't need to be very good to beat Obama whose legacy, both domestically and internationally, is characterised by failure.

Putting all that aside and if I were a betting man I would lay off a lazy %100 that Trump will resign (or be forced to resign) two/three years into his term of office.

Egbut ... you and I both know the US Presidential election is not determined on the basis of the popular vote. That argument is a red herring. It's not the first time it's happened either ... 1834, John Quincy Adams; 1876, Rutherford B Hayes; 1888, Benjamin Harrison and 2000 George Bush Jnr. Despite that there has been no appetite to change the system.

The framers of the Constitution were mindful of the importance of the States and State Rights. Hence their decision to opt for an electoral college to determine the Presidency. That system reinforces the power of States both individually and collectively.

The reality is that team Shillary were so arrogant, so dominated by effete liberals, that they took the 'rust bucket' States for-granted. They were Democrat States. It was unthinkable that they should defect to team Red so they didn't bother to campaign there until the very end and by then it was too late. If Shillary had won Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania she would be the President. She didn't. Physician heal thyself.

So asked for my definition of effete. I'd go for 'affected, over-refined and ineffectual'. In the States it's the Michael Moores of the world who thought they could subvert the electoral college vote by bribery; it's those same people who are now calling for Trump to be referred to as Trump rather than President (elect) Trump. They refuse to acknowledge that such churlishness demeans the office. Put it this way, Helen Clark as PM was never my cup of tea but she was PM and you had to respect that. It mattered not that her mandate was derived from the Labour Party caucus comprising just 45 members (in 1993).

Effete liberal, chardonnay socialist, call it what you will. Don't mind liberals, don't mind socialists. It's the effete and chardonnay bit that gets me going. Like the long serving Labour Party politician from South Auckland who sent his boy to King's College so that he could get a decent education ... spot the irony. Like an acquaintance of mine who was very big in the anti-apartheid movement but wouldn't let his daughter go out with a Maori.

The right often focuses on the comfortable lifestyle of particular figures from the left and extrapolate from this a couple of apparent conclusions. The first of these is a wild generalisation – that wealthy leftists are somehow representative of all.

Leftwing views, that is, are really only held among privileged (and, it has to be said, largely fictional) layers in society – "ivory tower academics", "Wellington liberals", "the metropolitan liberal elite" and the "chattering classes" for example.

The second is that the very existence of wealthy socialists is indicative not just of the hypocrisy of certain individuals but also of a fundamental and fatal problem for egalitarian politics. If rich socialists who profess to believe that inequality is unjust won't actually give their wealth to the poor then what are we to make of that apparent belief? It could be argued that you should look first to what these socialists practise rather than to what they preach – and what they practise could be said to be quite in keeping with the conservative view that humans are naturally acquisitive and self-seeking.

The first line of argument is easy to deal with. Of course it's true that many of the best known leftwing figures historically came from fairly privileged backgrounds. Indeed there's a good case for regarding one of the fathers of modern socialism – the factory-owning, high-living, Friedrich Engels – as, in some ways, the archetypal champagne socialist. It's clearly ridiculous, though, to argue that leftwing political convictions are to be found only among the well-off. To the extent that a disproportionate number of influential figures on the left have come from better-off backgrounds, this state of affairs is easily explicable in terms of structural social inequalities. Those with educational advantages and other privileges in terms of "cultural capital" for example are more likely to flourish than those without – in whatever particular pursuit they seek to succeed.

Here's a group of people with significant material advantages – and yet they call for the reduction or elimination of these advantages in society as a whole. Perhaps this is why those on the right despise chardonnay socialists so much.

For every chardonnay socialist I will show you a Tory "man of the People", Gritty, down to earth"... unfortunately no one has come up with suitable phrase, Beer swilling Tory just doesn't do it..as I swill as much beer as Chardonnay by your definition I must be a Centrist.

Egbut ... thank you for your response ... a thoughtful one indeed although you didn't comment on the arrogant Hillary bit. Some would argue that the so called 'Blue Rinse' Brigade is the Tory equivalent of the Chardonnay Socialist. Not sure about that. What you need to know is that I really despise extremism of both the Right and the Left. I think my politics tutor had it about right when he said that there is little difference between the extreme right and the extreme left ... they are joined at the hip, both are intolerant of dissenting views, both would seek to eliminate the opposition (by force) given half the chance.

There are good people in all parties. My Dad was Labour through and through. He tramped the streets for Labour come election time ... a good and decent man who, during the depression, gave away half his salary to help feed those in need. Mum was closet Tory. My sister tells the story that every election Dad would say 'Lilian, you voted the right way didn't you'. She would smile sweetly and say 'of course'.

Centrist by definition = floating voter. They are the really important ones who determine the election outcome.